On chess and go:
chess and go do interpenetrate: they are both situated in geometric space. But
what makes the distinction interesting for D&G is that the strategic and
tactical dimensions arise from very different sets of assumptions. In my
Pomo Culture piece and in my MLA paper ("Dynamic and Thermodynamic Tropes
of the subject in Freud and in D&G" and "Chess and Go as Competing Game Theorie
s of War in Mille Platteaux" I address the physical origin of these different
assumptions in the distinction that Prigogine and Stengers make about time-
reversible and time-irreversible systems theories--their ideological as well
as epistemological dimensions.
There is a grounding of this discussion with reference to war that makes
the distinction powerful as an interpretive tactic: there has been several
interesting studies of the origins of asian military tactics, particularly
those of Mao's armies as well as those of the NVA and the VC in Vietnam,
in Go. One might do an interesting study of the strictly tactical failures
of the US military in Vietnam simply by attempting to battle a foe through
tactics of attrition (premised on chess) against the tactics of envelopment
and annihilation...
(premised on Go) practiced by the VC and the NVA.
More on this later. Gotta make a flight......mer
------------------
chess and go do interpenetrate: they are both situated in geometric space. But
what makes the distinction interesting for D&G is that the strategic and
tactical dimensions arise from very different sets of assumptions. In my
Pomo Culture piece and in my MLA paper ("Dynamic and Thermodynamic Tropes
of the subject in Freud and in D&G" and "Chess and Go as Competing Game Theorie
s of War in Mille Platteaux" I address the physical origin of these different
assumptions in the distinction that Prigogine and Stengers make about time-
reversible and time-irreversible systems theories--their ideological as well
as epistemological dimensions.
There is a grounding of this discussion with reference to war that makes
the distinction powerful as an interpretive tactic: there has been several
interesting studies of the origins of asian military tactics, particularly
those of Mao's armies as well as those of the NVA and the VC in Vietnam,
in Go. One might do an interesting study of the strictly tactical failures
of the US military in Vietnam simply by attempting to battle a foe through
tactics of attrition (premised on chess) against the tactics of envelopment
and annihilation...
(premised on Go) practiced by the VC and the NVA.
More on this later. Gotta make a flight......mer
------------------